Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mk02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 1477E38000098; Sat, 3 Mar 2012 20:10:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1S3zxk-0003FR-OD for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 04 Mar 2012 01:10:12 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1S3zxk-0003FI-Bu for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 04 Mar 2012 01:10:12 +0000 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.100.212]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1S3zxi-00086e-Vg for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 04 Mar 2012 01:10:12 +0000 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q241AAkb029503 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 02:10:10 +0100 Received: from [129.206.22.206] (pc206.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.22.206]) by freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.2) with ESMTP id q241A9EQ016329 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 02:10:09 +0100 Message-ID: <4F52C0BB.3010505@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 02:09:15 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <12959492286D45E9BB24E80CE57644CD@AGB> In-Reply-To: <12959492286D45E9BB24E80CE57644CD@AGB> X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,RATWARE_GECKO_BUILD=1.426 Subject: Re: LF: Permissible QSY limits for 136 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020606090005050005020004" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:457156000:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d61864f52c12157f3 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020606090005050005020004 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Am 04.03.2012 02:01, schrieb Graham: > Permissible QSY limits for 136 > Q what is the average Q of a 136 Khz Ae system ? (back > garden + larger) Maybe arround 50. > Q What would the maximum acceptable change in frequency +/- > Fo before swr considerations became a problem , say 10% > reflected power 1 :2 swr ? .... That depends strongly on the PA circuit. A class E is very critical. A H bridge has almost no problems at all (just lower output power then). I would stay below 1:1.5 if the output power is 70% or above. 73, Stefan --------------020606090005050005020004 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Am 04.03.2012 02:01, schrieb Graham:

Permissible QSY limits for 136

Q what is the average Q of a 136 Khz Ae system ? (back garden + larger)

Maybe arround 50.

Q What would the maximum acceptable change in frequency +/- Fo before swr considerations became a problem , say 10% reflected power 1 :2 swr ? ....

That depends strongly on the PA circuit. A class E is very critical. A H bridge has almost no problems at all (just lower output power then). I would stay below 1:1.5 if the output power is 70% or above.

73, Stefan

--------------020606090005050005020004--